About your Search

20120928
20121006
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
d date will focus on foreign policy. earlier this week the carnegie endowment for peace posted a discussion on the president's role in leading foreign policy. they talked about challenges facing the u.s. including american influence and engagement globally, the changing international order and emerging nations. two of the featured panelists included thomas friedman, "new york times" foreign affairs columnist and author of "the world is flat." and jessica mathews, carnegie president and director of national security office of global issues. >> good evening. my name is david rothkopf, and i will be the moderator for this evening. in the carnegie endowment discussion about how should the next american president engage the world. this is a debate format discussion. we have a terrific group of panelists here. starting on the far right we have professor john ikenberry of princeton. next is tom friedman of the new york times. next to him is our own jessica matthews of the carnegie endowment, and beside jessica is bob kagan at the brookings institution and we are going to cover several
today in virginia beach. and he went right at mr. romney on foreign policy and the wars. and he is -- he's right there when he says that we don't know what mr. romney would do if he became president. mr. romney has said recently and vaguely that he supports what president obama is doing in afghanistan in terms of there being a timeline for leaving but he has also said he was against a timeline for leaving in the past. so really who knows? he's not even trying. the closest we've gotten to any competing cogent republican position on the war is probably what we got from senator john mccain at the republican convention when he said that the afghanistan war just shouldn't end. he also thinks that the iraq war shouldn't have ended. so i'm not sure that it's a politically viable position. even if it is an internally cogent one from the senator. for this year's nominee, it's apparently just not going to happen. not unless he starts it now. 40 days out, mitt romney did get as close as he gets to talking about the issue today. in that he spoke before a group of veterans and talked about a concern
something about the foreign policy front. the administration has basic plea changed its account of what happened in libya, where our u.s. ambassador was killed. they said, susan rice said on this broadcast last sunday, after the president of libya said this was the work of terrorists, she said, no, this was because of a spontaneous demonstration that had to do with that film. now they have come around to saying, well, yes, it was a terrorist attack. is mitt romney making enough of this? i haven't heard too much from him on that. >> bob, what struck me-- and i have nope the director of national intelligence for years. he's a bright man. he's a competent man. this administration in effect is now saying, "oh, don't blame the united nations ambassador. don't blame the white house spokesman. don't blame the president, because our intelligence system failed so decisively." i don't know which worries me more, the idea that the intelligence system took weeks to figure out the obvious-- although we are told in fact they had information the day before the attack because the video that went out fr
of the administration was to downplay the attack because they don't want any foreign policy -- nobody comes to a protest with rocket launchers so it had -- they are the markings of something more than a spontaneous protest than had gone awry. but i do think the white house is basically placing the burden of the white house on the intelligence agency and saying they were following what they were being told and they didn't really confirm that it was a terrorist attack until some days, even a week later. and i think the president, in his initial remarks at the white house did call it an act of terror, just, yeah, all the protests. >> okay. anne let's listen to a bit more here of the matter on mete the press. >> the president failed the level of the american people and called it a trift attack. because you had to be concerned about another terrorist attack in the middle east after al qaeda had been defeated. >> that's preposterous and really offensive. this presidential record on terrorism takes a back seat to no one. >> ann, is the white house at all concerned this may become an issue on the campaign trail
: this debate will be about domestic affairs. i want to ask you something about the foreign policy front. the administration has basic plea changed its account of what happened in libya, where our u.s. ambassador was killed. they said, susan rice said on this broadcast last sunday, after the president of libya said this was the work of terrorists, she said, no, this was because of a spontaneous demonstration that had to do with that film. now they have come around to saying, well, yes, it was a terrorist attack. is mitt romney making enough of this? i haven't heard too much from him on that. >> bob, what struck me-- and i have nope the director of national intelligence for years. he's a bright man. he's a competent man. this administration in effect is now saying, "oh, don't blame the united nations ambassador. don't blame the white house spokesman. don't blame the president, because our intelligence system failed so decisively." i don't know which worries me more, the idea that the intelligence system took weeks to figure out the obvious-- although we are told in fact they had informati
hampered from doing any of it. >> tonight, they will not go into the foreign policy stuff. the one part where obama is weak is this flip-flopping, if you will, on the libya stuff. that's the weakness, the nugget, if you will, the window opening. they won't go into that tonight, or they shouldn't go into it. >> thank you, guys, for the pregame. appreciate it. quick programming note. cnbc's coverage of the first presidential debate begins tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern time. >> if you've got your reaction shots ready? we have a different director today. >> yeah. >> god forbid -- let me just try. surprised. >> just be ready. because it's coming. >> i need to know. it's a long morning. >> he's thrown in with us trying to follow our conversation around the table. but be careful. >> almost got me. i was doing that. >> oh, you were? >> yeah. >> i'm listening to you intently. >> thank you. i appreciate it. >> don't take me when i'm listening to andrew seriously. anyway. did you get that? i figure when i do the great things -- >> this is a youtube moment. it will go viral. >> you've got to watch e
for 12 months today. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy? >>> nbc's chief foreign affairs correspondent andrea mitchell interviewed a lot of scary people and dictators and ego maniacs over the years and over the years from doing that, she has endured these scary people and dictators and ego maniacs saying crazy things to her in close proximity. but also she has endured worse. >> when rice tried to challenge sudan's president omar al bashir, his security aides -- the security men tried to stop us from covering a photo opportunity. >> no. no. no. we don't let cameras into -- oh! >> reporter: when i asked sudan's president a question -- can you tell us why the government is still supporting the militias? they grabbed me from behind and dragged me out. >> when things like this happen to andrea mitchell because she is such a pro, she is fototally zen through the whole thing. she does not crack up, doesn't yell at people. she doesn't let her jaw drop to the floor. he doesn't do a loony tunes style split take. andrea mitchell maintains composure in difficult circu
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)